How Does the California Foreclosure Process Work?
Notice of Default:
This is the start of the pre-foreclosure process. An initial Notice of Default is publicly recorded at the county recorder’s office after a borrower fails to meet the terms of their loan.
The Notice of Default provides a window of 90 days during which the homeowner can work with the lender to resolve the foreclosure.
Notice of Trustee Sale:
The Notice of Trustee Sale sets an auction date to sell the property. It can be recorded 3 months after the Notice of Default filing date.
The initial auction date can be no sooner than 21 days after the Notice of Trustee Sale is recorded. Auctions can be postponed for up to one year at the discretion of the lender.
Postponed / Sold to Bank / Sold to 3rd Party / Cancelled
In California, foreclosure sales can be postponed for up to one year per CA Civil Code section 2924g.(c)(1). If a sale has been postponed longer than a year, after the initial sale date, then a new Notice of Trustee’s Sale must be recorded.
How Do I Stop My Foreclosure?
The only answer that we know that has stopped and continues to stop a foreclosure (like one today) is by getting a court order, also known as either a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction (“PI”). Be aware that just because you were told by someone “working” for the lender or the “servicer” of the underlying obligation that the foreclosure is stayed (even if you have something in writing from them), it does not guarantee they won’t foreclose.
For example I had one case where the law firm for Bank of America stated in writing that they will not foreclose on the property. Less than three weeks later the property was sold to a third party. Obviously we used that letter in court, but at the end of the day the client’s home was sold and we had to stop the buyer from evicting them from their house.
So the lessons you should take away from this are:
- Be sure to engage the help of an experienced foreclosure litigation attorney – There are a lot of people out there who are happy to take your money but they don’t have the experience to truly help you stop your foreclosure.
- Don’t wait until the last minute to get help. Once you are behind start looking for legal help. The more time your attorney has to prepare the better chance you have of getting a TRO and then a PI ordered by the Court.
- That is a question that is asked by anyone facing an impending foreclosure in California. Because California is a non-judicial foreclosure state the purported lender or agent on behalf of the lender only needs to jump through a couple of hoops, none of which require any court or legal oversight in order to sell your property on the county courthouse steps.
The threat of a foreclosure is enough to put your mind in a state of constant distress an turmoil and we are here to help.
When we saw all of the families being displaced during the 2008 housing crises because they weren’t being fairly represented, we knew we had to help. We are very proud of our efforts as the premier law firm dedicated to preserving the rights of homeowners against the Big Banks.
We have an over 90% success rate* at keeping people in their homes who were facing an imminent foreclosure. Due to our knowledge of the law, persistent discovery practices, winning focus, and experience utilizing expert witnesses we are champions in our field.
* Although Estavillo Law Group has had a 90% success rate in imminent foreclosure cases, we cannot guarantee a successful outcome in every case. Each case is unique and the success of past cases does not guarantee success in future cases. We will, however, work diligently to provide you with the best possible representation.
Our record of success remains steadfast, winning cases against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, The Bank of New York Melon, HSBC, Aurora Loan Services, Nationstar (Mr. Cooper) and several more.
We know selecting an attorney to trust with your home or property is hard. Many people come to us after a negative experience with another firm and they are reluctant to trust that we will deliver on our promises. However, our clients have told us that they sleep better knowing that we are fighting for them and that we will do everything possible to win their case.
Please take a minute to review our recent court victories below and then contact us for your free and confidential consultation.
Our Recent Court Victories:
- Huang V. Wells Fargo – On January 14, 2019, the Alameda County Superior Court granted
our Client’s Motion to Consolidate/Stay an unlawful detainer (eviction) action with our client’s
pending wrongful foreclosure action against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and Amador Avenue
Properties, LLC (“Amador”).
- Crawford V. U.S. Bank, N.A. California Court of Appeals First Appellate District Div. 2
A149617 – We convinced the Court that the trial judge in Contra Costa County Superior Court
had errored when it granted a judgment in favor of U.S. Bank and against our Client. The
Court of Appeals found that the trial judge had incorrectly applied California Law and that our
Client was not precluded from moving forward with their complaint because res judicata did
not apply to our Client’s lawsuit
- Brown V. The Bank of New York Mellon I8CIV04270 – In San Mateo County Superior Court
we succeeded in getting the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order, halting a
foreclosure sale. The lender, Specialized Loan Servicing (“SLS”) failed to recognize our
Client’s claim to the Property as a successor-in-interest of her deceased mothers home. This
was in direct violation of Cal. Civ. Code section 2920.7, which protects successor-in-interests’
rights to the Property following the death of a borrower
- Craign V. U.S. Bank, N.A. Case No. CV1801674 – Marin County Superior Court granted our
motion for Preliminary Injunction, effectively halting any further foreclosure activity on our
Client’s home. We will next seek attorney fees and costs.
- Rheil V. The Bank of New York Mellon Case No. MSC18-01476– Appeared in Contra Costa
County Superior Court and succeeded in getting a Temporary Restraining Order issued
stopping Bank of New York Mellon and Specialized Loan Servicing (“SLS”) from proceeding
with a foreclosure sale of our Client’s home.
- Mendoza V. The Bank of New York Mellon Case No. 2017-CV-312432 – Succeeded in Santa
Clara County Superior Court against Ocwen and Bank of New York Mellon – Judge ruled in
our Clients’ favor on all issues and overruled Defendants Demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) to our
Second Amended Complaint. All causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, Cancellation of
Instruments, and to Set Aside the Trustee Sale survived the Demurrer. Now Defendants are
required to answer the complaint which will put the case at issue and the matter will be set for
- Lewis V. Wilmington Savings Fund and BSI Case No. RG18912424 – In Alameda County
we were retained to stop a foreclosure sale. We were able to draft a Complaint and appear in
Court Ex Parte to request a Temporary Restraining Order in less than a week. Court granted
Ex Parte and issued a TRO to stop Defendant from engaging in dual tracking, and effectively
cancelling the Trustee’s Sale set for the same day. Defendants were attempting to proceed
with a wrongful foreclosure sale of our Clients’ home, despite the fact that our Clients’
complete loss mitigation application was still under active review by the servicer, BSI Financial
Services. This type of conduct is in direct violation of California’s nonjudicial foreclosure